HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VANDANA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant against the appellant-opposite parties it has been concluded as under: "we hold that OPs have wrongly refused to grant necessary permission to the complainant to transfer the plot in question particularly when the complainant is ready to execute indemnity bond to the satisfaction of OPs to pay any outstanding amount that may be found payable by her by the Hon'ble State Commission or any other competent Court of Law. Accordingly, this complaint is disposed of with the direction that OPs shall grant necessary permission to the complainant to transfer/sell the plot in question to the prospective purchaser within a period of 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order without imposing any restriction upon the complainant. However, before granting necessary permission to the complainant to transfer the plot in question, OPs may obtain indemnity bond from her, if so desired. There shall be no order as to costs. "

(2.) In order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal essential facts as spelled out from the record need to be noticed briefly. The complainant was allotted a plot No.295 located in Urban Estate, Sector-7, Karnal as per letter No.3507 dated 24.1.1986 by the opposite parties. Because of certain demands received from the opposite parties, the complainant filed a Complaint No.216 of 2003 on 10.3.2003 before the District Forum, Karnal which was decided on 14.3.2005 whereby direction was given to the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant. Execution No.42 of 2005 filed on 30.3.2005 was also decided on 27.9.2005. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the necessary stamp papers for the execution of the conveyance-deed vide Memo No.15133 dated 8.11.2005. The physical possession of the allotted plot was given to the complainant on 10.11.2005. In the first week of December, 2005 the complainant submitted an application to the opposite parties seeking permission to sell the plot in question but the permission was denied to her on the ground that the appeal against the order dated 14.3.2005 passed in complaint by the District Forum had been filed which was pending. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum alleging that there is no condition in the agreement that after the execution of conveyance-deed, the complainant shall have no right to sell the plot in question. It was further averred by the complainant that she had entered into an agreement to sell the plot in question and till the permission was granted, she would be required to pay double the amount of the earnest money of Rs.2,50,000. The complainant also stated that she was ready to give indemnity bond and affidavit undertaking to refund any amount due to the opposite parties. Accordingly, it was prayed that direction be given to the opposite parties to grant permission to sell the plot in question without demanding any extension fee and interest and in terms to return the amount of extension fee already charged from her; to pay interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till the offer of possession on 13.9.2005 and to pay the balance amount due to her. In addition Rs.20,000 was claimed as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to her. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that a sum of Rs.19,455 and Rs.66,790 were payable by the complainant as over due of extension fee till 31.1.2006 respectively and till the said payment the permission to transfer the plot could not be granted to her. At the same time they did not dispute that the application for transfer of the plot had been received in their office on 12.12.2005 but no decision had been taken on the said application due to non-cooperation of the complainant. The plea of res judicata was also raised because against the order dated 14.3.2005 passed in Complaint Case No.216 of 2003 the appeal filed by the opposite parties before the State Commission is still pending and for that reason relief claimed in the present complaint was covered under the previous complaint. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint as noticed above as per order dated 31.1.2006. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.